A thread tracking pure skip cycle instant reefs, no bottle bac

[MnFish1]

28% the real concentration of ammonia or ammonium?
The seneye tests for ammonia (nh3), at reef Ph levels you would expect to see a ratio of ammonia to ammonium of ~1:3 (according to Randy's article on reef alchemy)

If you are looking for ammonium levels and got 1/3 the expected amount but in ammonia then your ammonium would be accurate. Or vice versa

My reading of the post is that the Seneye (according to posters here - I haven't heard from the company) needs to be re-calibrated for the tank its being used in - again - I don't understand the logic - so I may be quoting it incorrectly. However, the implication was that the results 'out of the box' are incorrect.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

There is no myth out there. IMHO. It is totally possible (though unlikely as already mentioned multiple times) - for errors to happen after transferring an old tank to a new tank - which results in ammonia, etc issues. Thus, even though it's 'rare', it's prudent when one has a 200 gallon tank with 20,000+ dollars of coral, etc. to monitor chemistry for a couple days afterwards (along the lines of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure). If you want to take it to extremes, in reality - those that are testing alkalinity, Ca, PO4 Nitrate more than 2-3 times/week are probably most often getting 'normal' results and are wasting their time and money. But - they know if their corals are using more alkalinity, and Ca etc. Skip cycling a large tank involves several steps - its sometimes difficult to do it as fast as one would like to - meaning its possible that things to change/die/etc. Again - most people with large tanks probably have the experience to do it without any issue. It is impossible for anyone to state with 100% certainty (IMHO) - that there will not be a problem with a given tank change, i.e. skip cycle. Thus - testing for ammonia, etc after a skip cycle in a larger system would be stupid NOT to do - given the potential risks.

I believe there are also work threads out there talking about tanks that have had problems with this method - mostly when moving old sand with the rock to the new tank.

By the way - I think I read you writing something along the lines of if you increase the bioload in a tank the bacteria on the rocks will rapidly increase and there will be no ammonia issue (if you didn't I apologize). In reality - if you markedly the bioload (lets say you have 3 tangs in a 50 gallon and you add 5 more), You may very well have an ammonia issue. Likewise - if you're doing a skip cycle - lets say a 20 gallon to a 100 gallon tank, and add only your old rock into the new tank, but multiply the bioload by 3, its entirely possible that your rock may take days to make up for the increased bioload.

I agree always can be an error. And as I stated I see nothing wrong testing. It is what people do when they don't see the results they typically expect when setting up a new tank and using live rock that is the issue.

Part of the issue with the move and using sand is not cleaning it properly. Especially if it has never been cleaned. Sand traps more stuff and things settle down below. This does cause issues as now everything is released and can cause an overload in nutrients and such. But if done correctly shouldn't be. But how many people do this or know to do so lol.

I did but I'm not talking about adding an extreme amount. A few fish added in a large tank won't be an overload and shouldn't see a rise in levels. The bacteria should be able to multiply enough for this and handle. Now you drop in the examples you stated of course it will take days for levels to be where they need to be. But nobody should be doing this with fish lol. But people add several fish at a time to their tanks and levels won't budge on a daily basis (meaning multiple people to multiple tanks, not a person adding to the same tank everyday lol) and don't see any issues or level changes.

I'm more of a common sense approach....well to some lol. I think the issue is your reading some of my examples trying to make sure I understand Brandon's point, Like with the refractometer, With what I do or think. But I'm not always clear when I type it out as it is in my head and can cause confussion lol. There is also always extremes.

I think we pretty much agree mostly on things lol.

I might have double responded here lol.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

The issue with the rock is the various inverts that may not survive - and again it's only a potential issue - but it is certainly riskier not to test than to test, IMO.

The problem is that (to my recollection) it has also been said that within a very short time - any shortage of bacteria will be mitigated. If mainly heterotrophs take over - that should be fairly quick - as the new 'bioload' produces waste.

But - we agree that there is an inherent risk with your live rock dying with any transfer. Which is why the statement that 'one never needs to check chemistries when doing a tank transfer/skip cycle' seems imprudent to me

This is why I think live rock should be acclimated or levels matched. I use same as my last water so no issues. Now if I get a piece like I want from Tampa Bay live rock, I will acclimate the rock.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

Below we fast forward from 1989 to 1994. The Reef Aquarium Vol 1 is newly released and quickly becomes the go to source for trusted information.

It surprises me that someone who has invested so much into cycling science has never stumbled across probably the most well known reference sources in the hobby.

I guess this is just emblematic of the internet age. Quality reference books like these and Tullocks Natural Reef Aquarium are relegated to hieroglyph status buried in dusty bookshelves or displayed as token background ornaments on a YouTube vloggers shelf.

Awesome find

 

[moretor1]

The issue with the rock is the various inverts that may not survive - and again it's only a potential issue - but it is certainly riskier not to test than to test, IMO.

The problem is that (to my recollection) it has also been said that within a very short time - any shortage of bacteria will be mitigated. If mainly heterotrophs take over - that should be fairly quick - as the new 'bioload' produces waste.

But - we agree that there is an inherent risk with your live rock dying with any transfer. Which is why the statement that 'one never needs to check chemistries when doing a tank transfer/skip cycle' seems imprudent to me

That's fair, and I partially agree that never testing when skip cycling is a risky move, but I believe Brandon speaks from his many experiences with people coming in with faulty ammonia tests or a misunderstanding of what they should be looking for,
and while I don't feel the need to test my new freshwater tanks I still do because it is just a comfort of mind kind of thing to me, even if the tank has sat for a week and has plants growing in it

 

[Garf]

Brandon speaks from his many experiences with people coming in with faulty ammonia tests or a misunderstanding of what they should be looking fo

Despite API reputation, the Chemicals in the test kits are actually good

This topic is @Dan_P 's baby - I'm just running with it. Dan will even go further than I will and use some of the API kits that I won't mess with (NO3, PO4). It's widely claimed that API tests can't be trusted and any values reported by API should be ignored until the hobbyist throws them in a...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Lasse]

28% the real concentration of ammonia or ammonium?
The seneye tests for ammonia (nh3), at reef Ph levels you would expect to see a ratio of ammonia to ammonium of ~1:3 (according to Randy's article on reef alchemy)

If you are looking for ammonium levels and got 1/3 the expected amount but in ammonia then your ammonium would be accurate. Or vice versa

If you read the thread you will see that his investigation shows that Seneye read a NH3 concentration that was 28% of the real NH3 concentration. Read the thread and you will understand. I do not mix upp NH3 with NH3/NH4 or NH4 see this

Well reading what you linked down further is what I got out of it and was discussing. Please just post or provide explanation rather than just pointing to a thread and stating FYI and reference the section.

I will read down in the weeds lol. But that is what I got out of it reading the replies and from seneye response.

The thread I point out explain the difficulties in a very good way - no need for me to translate it. @Dan_P did an investigation with known amount of total NH3/NH4, known pH, known salinity and known temperature. The seneye shows 28% of the real value of NH3. It was stable but need to be calibrated in a complicated way.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I have store bought, I very the salinity is correct and verify that my refractometer is also correct by comparing to prebought calibration solution.

Side note

I use calibration solutions for my refractometer. However some years ago I send in an ICP test to a company that also test salinity - it was sky high but my refractometer was spot on if I use the calibration solution - bough a new and that shows similar result as the ICP lab. During time had my old calibration solution get stronger - probably by evaporation. Nowadays - when I buy new calibration solution I buy a brand that deliver it in a syringe (evaporation not possible) or fill some empty syringes with the new solution and store it that way.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

If you read the thread you will see that his investigation shows that Seneye read a NH3 concentration that was 28% of the real NH3 concentration. Read the thread and you will understand. I do not mix upp NH3 with NH3/NH4 or NH4 see this


The thread I point out explain the difficulties in a very good way - no need for me to translate it. @Dan_P did an investigation with known amount of total NH3/NH4, known pH, known salinity and known temperature. The seneye shows 28% of the real value of NH3. It was stable but need to be calibrated in a complicated way.

Sincerely Lasse

I have an idea to repeat the Seneye ammonia sensor study with greater thoroughness. I want to do this because I seem to have observed a temperature effect, i.e. a calibrated Seneye will give a somewhat different measurement of free ammonia when the temperature is not the same as that used for the calibration. The effect seems larger at higher free ammonia concentrations. I would like to do this study in the coming months because I need to measure low concentrations of free ammonia.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

If you read the thread you will see that his investigation shows that Seneye read a NH3 concentration that was 28% of the real NH3 concentration. Read the thread and you will understand. I do not mix upp NH3 with NH3/NH4 or NH4 see this


The thread I point out explain the difficulties in a very good way - no need for me to translate it. @Dan_P did an investigation with known amount of total NH3/NH4, known pH, known salinity and known temperature. The seneye shows 28% of the real value of NH3. It was stable but need to be calibrated in a complicated way.

Sincerely Lasse

If it explained in a good way but still saying I got it wrong, doesn't mean it was a good way for me. This is down to knowledge based. What you understand will be different than what I understand or interpret. You can't point to a thread and say FYI without adding a bit of what the conclusion should be or at least what to get out of it. My findings were different.

Not saying what you said isn't in there. Just stating I didn't see that or missed reading through what I did. Why I don't agree with how Brandon responds with here's a work thread lol.

At the same time I understand this has been ongoing and it is easier for the person to reference than repost but not as easy for the reader. Especially those that are just told to read this without context. I need more guidance then others apparently when referencing things. Lol

Nothing against you or what you posted just for me in my brain.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

Side note

I use calibration solutions for my refractometer. However some years ago I send in an ICP test to a company that also test salinity - it was sky high but my refractometer was spot on if I use the calibration solution - bough a new and that shows similar result as the ICP lab. During time had my old calibration solution get stronger - probably by evaporation. Nowadays - when I buy new calibration solution I buy a brand that deliver it in a syringe (evaporation not possible) or fill some empty syringes with the new solution and store it that way.

Sincerely Lasse

Can you send me message to the ones in syringe? That's a great idea. I also could put when I get them in a syringe as well.

 

[moretor1]

Despite API reputation, the Chemicals in the test kits are actually good

This topic is @Dan_P 's baby - I'm just running with it. Dan will even go further than I will and use some of the API kits that I won't mess with (NO3, PO4). It's widely claimed that API tests can't be trusted and any values reported by API should be ignored until the hobbyist throws them in a...

www.reef2reef.com

Just because someone did a test with a sample size of 2 doesn't mean that api doesn't have bad quality control

I use their tests on my aquarium, but I wouldn't take their ammonia tests at face value on saltwater tanks

 

[Garf]

Just because someone did a test with a sample size of 2 doesn't mean that api doesn't have bad quality control

I use their tests on my aquarium, but I wouldn't take their ammonia tests at face value on saltwater tanks

Notice a trend?

Mini cycle

Hello, I bought a 120g used with sand and lots of rocks and tons of nems, and inverts a few days ago. I should have not reused the sand I'm realizing that now. Ammonia is 0.93 (hanna) nitrate 7.9 (hamna). I already had to do a massive water change about 60-70% because I couldnt transport all the...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[moretor1]

Notice a trend?

Mini cycle

Hello, I bought a 120g used with sand and lots of rocks and tons of nems, and inverts a few days ago. I should have not reused the sand I'm realizing that now. Ammonia is 0.93 (hanna) nitrate 7.9 (hamna). I already had to do a massive water change about 60-70% because I couldnt transport all the...

www.reef2reef.com

i'm gonna be honest with you, i have no clue what you are alluding to

 

[BeanAnimal]

To be fair Brandon has warned people not to overload tanks when skip cycling (me included)

To be fair, even a cursory search of his posts will show you that he contradicts himself regularly, often in the same thread and even sometimes in a single post. I am rather sure it will be easy for you to find examples directly in context to the above.

 

[moretor1]

To be fair, even a cursory search of his posts will show you that he contradicts himself regularly, often in the same thread and even sometimes in a single post. I am rather sure it will be easy for you to find examples directly in context to the above.

I personally dont care if brandon contradicts himself occasionally.
thats the part where i use my big boy brain and decide what i want to believe myself
I dont care about brandons drama tbh i just like discussing skip cycles

 

[BeanAnimal]

It surprises me that someone who has invested so much into cycling science has never stumbled across probably the most well known reference sources in the hobby.

Because he has no respect for these reference sources, as he feels that those who write them are shills and talking heads that don’t do “outbound work”. He derides them as untrustworthy, unless of course he is cherry picking a sentence or two as needed.

I personally dont care if brandon contradicts himself occasionally.
thats the part where i use my big boy brain and decide what i want to believe myself
I dont care about brandons drama tbh i just like discussing skip cycles

Contradictions are just a small aspect of a larger issue. Big boy brains are not the concern, it is the newcomers that most of us are trying to help.

In any case, for somebody who doesn’t care you are certainly providing him a lot of cover.

Side note

I use calibration solutions for my refractometer. However some years ago I send in an ICP test to a company that also test salinity - it was sky high but my refractometer was spot on if I use the calibration solution - bough a new and that shows similar result as the ICP lab. During time had my old calibration solution get stronger - probably by evaporation. Nowadays - when I buy new calibration solution I buy a brand that deliver it in a syringe (evaporation not possible) or fill some empty syringes with the new solution and store it that way.

Sincerely Lasse

I gave up on calibration solutions for refractometers for similar reasons. I now use the Tropic Marin floating hydrometer as my reference and adjust the refractometers to match it. I spot check the refractometers from time to time with it but don’t do anything in between. It also keeps the GHL conductivity reading honest. So I triangulate between the TM, refractometers and GHL with TM as the standard and refractometers and GHL keeping each other honest. Flawed or not, I do t buy calibration fluid anymore.

 

[MnFish1]

Just because someone did a test with a sample size of 2 doesn't mean that api doesn't have bad quality control

I use their tests on my aquarium, but I wouldn't take their ammonia tests at face value on saltwater tanks

There has been more than one debate about this - and at least a couple (or more) videos documenting the accuracy, etc of various test kits. I have used API - and all the others. I find the colors on many of the non API tests extremely difficult to read (not sure why). In any case, I have never had any issue with ammonia nor any other test from API - unless I accidentally didn't follow the directions. So - it is more than a sample of 2. Of course anyone can use any test they prefer.

 

[Lasse]

You can't point to a thread and say FYI without adding a bit of what the conclusion should be or at least what to get out of it. My findings were different.

At the same time I understand this has been ongoing and it is easier for the person to reference than repost but not as easy for the reader. Especially those that are just told to read this without context. I need more guidance then others apparently when referencing things.

This is exactly why I like to refer to the original source instead for force my perception of a text to another person.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

i'm gonna be honest with you, i have no clue what you are alluding to

IMO - Its the latest example when a general statement like - if you read any result on a total ammonia test - it is false reading could have lead to a catastrophe for the original poster.

Sincerely Lasse